Topics:

Free tagging:

Comments

I never get the logic of some bicyclists that while riding a vehicle that's slower, less visible, and with less protection from collisions that it's a good idea to run reds when they would never do it in a car. I'm frequent bike commuter and have been almost hit several times by other bikes when I had the green light and they were running a red. Following the rules of the road is not just the law, it is safe, its courteous and its smart.

PS - Just because some bicyclists are idiots is no excuse for moron motorists to tell bicyclists to get off the road. Bikes belong on the road, period.

As an avid rider (3-4K miles a year) out here in the burbs, I behave myself. I don't want to give somebody driving a car some reason to be pissed off at a cyclist. So when I see another cyclist act like a dick, I get the feeling that I may take the brunt of his bad actions sometime in the future. I'm concerned enough with cell-phone-talking soccer moms late for their tennis match, I don't need to give others a reason to squeeze me off the road.

Given how ridiculously awful Boston-area drivers are, it seems a little silly to be pointing out a few lousy/rude/dangerous cyclists. Bikes are way outnumbered on the roads, have almost no lanes in which to ride, and are routinely harrassed and cut off by clueless Bean Town drivers. Let's point the finger of blame where it belongs: squarely on Boston drivers. After all, most of the idiot bikers are also drivers who suck no matter what vehicle they're driving.

I saw the Herald had an article on jaywalking fines, and talked about cities like Edmonton.

The only problem: people don't jaywalk in Edmonton or Portland or other places that issue citations for the same reason that they don't do as much stupid driving or cycling in those places either.

The laws are enforced, on everyone, a solid percentage of the time.

Helping the situation: the signals are properly sited and installed, the signals work, there are adequate signs for where you are going and where you should be, pedestrian and cycling facilities actually exist, etc. It isn't all haphazard and half-baked and infrastructure is properly maintained.

Until and unless Boston wants to actually enforce the laws on taxis, cars, cyclists, and pedestrians, the free-for-all will continue because that is what people seem to want.

I've noticed a lot of this since the weather has turned good. I even saw one guy trying to navigate a rotorary while talking on then *looking* down at his cell phone when he took it from his ear. He must have had a death wish.

I dislike it when cyclists complain about sharing the road when the very same cyclists don't want to play by the rules of the road. How can they expect drivers to obey the rules when they themselves don't?

I love it when motorists get all indignant that bicyclists don't follow the rules to a T. Forget the fact that cars routinely run red lights. (Ever try to get across Harvard Street on Beacon during rush hour?).

Here's a quick question for you motorists: when you are driving on a two-lane road with a double-yellow line and there's a bicyclist in your lane, do you patiently wait behind the bicyclist until there's a legal place to pass? Of course not. Can you imagine what would happen if bikes rode in the middle of the lane preventing you from passing? It's legal, you know.

Bikes aren't cars. We bikers recognize that and don't insist on the full measure of our right to the road. And, sometimes, we apply this flexible approach to give ourselves an advantage through an intersection.

That said, as cars should take special care with more vulnerable bikers, bikers should take special care with more vulnerable pedestrians. It doesn't matter whether you have the light or not, bikers should yield to pedestrians.